2017 (1) TMI 692 - AT - Customs

Entitlement to the benefit of N/N. 64/88-Cus. - condition 2(a) and 2(b) has been complied with before rescission of N/N. 64/88-Cus - Held that - On a specific question from the Bench as to the facts of the case, it was informed to us that Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) issued by the DGHS authorities in appellant s case stood withdrawn by the authorities. This factual position was not brought to the knowledge of the Bench which referred the issue to Larger Bench due to which this reference was made - we decline to answer the reference made to us and remit the matter back to the Division Bench to decide the issue on the facts and circumstances of the case - appeal disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of conditions 2(a) and 2(b) of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. post rescission of the notification.

Analysis:
The Larger Bench was constituted to address a reference regarding the interpretation of conditions 2(a) and 2(b) of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. post its rescission by Notification No. 99/94. The question posed was whether an importer is entitled to the benefits of the notification for imports made when conditions 2(a) and 2(b) were fulfilled before the rescission. The Bench noted conflicting views from different Division Benches and referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for clarification.

The crux of the issue was whether the benefits extended to the importer under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. needed to be satisfied even after the rescission of the notification. Both parties presented arguments supporting their respective positions based on previous decisions. During the proceedings, it came to light that the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) issued to the appellant had been withdrawn by the authorities, a crucial fact that was not initially disclosed. Given this new information, the Bench decided that the Division Bench could resolve the case based on the specific facts without delving into the implications of the rescission of Notification No. 64/88. Consequently, the Larger Bench declined to answer the reference and referred the matter back to the Division Bench for a decision based on the factual circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Larger Bench's decision to remit the issue back to the Division Bench reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving the case based on the specific facts presented, rather than delving into the broader implications of the rescission of the notification. This nuanced approach ensures that the case is decided on its merits and specific circumstances, without unnecessary extrapolation to broader legal principles.